Today 7:48 AM
A question was asked on Bible Truths.com. l Ray Smith talks about Lazarus and the rich man, he argues that it's a parable and that parables are not literally true in the scientific and historical sense. But there's also a video on his channel called "the bible is one big parable".
So if the bible is one big parable, does that mean that the whole thing is not literally true? I know he says that about Revelations specifically and i think that's what he says about the garden of Eden, but what about kings/chronicles, the gospels, etc.
Was he using the word parable in a different sense?
Yes — I think you have put your finger on an important distinction in L. Ray Smith's use of the word “parable.” He does not appear to mean that everything in the Bible is fictional or that nothing actually happened.
I checked some of Ray's own material and Bible-Truths forum discussions, and his usage is broader than the ordinary definition of parable as “a made-up story designed to teach a lesson.”
What Ray seems to mean
Ray often uses “parable” in the sense of something physical or historical that also conveys a deeper spiritual meaning.
In other words:
The physical story/event can be real, while the spiritual lesson is the greater meaning.
That's quite different from saying:
“This never happened; it's just a fictional story.”
For example, Ray discusses the Garden of Eden and says:
“So, did Eve talk with a literal, physical, snake, face to face, in the garden? I don't think so.”
That shows that he was willing to regard the Garden account itself as conveying spiritual truths without necessarily accepting every element as literal physical history.
But that doesn't automatically carry over to Kings, Chronicles, or the historical portions of the Gospels.
And this is where the wording can become confusing
Ray's approach seems to have several different categories:
1. A straightforward historical account
For example, a king ruling Israel, a battle, a genealogy, Paul's travels, etc.
Those don't become fictional merely because Ray believes the Bible contains spiritual symbolism.
2. A literal event that also has spiritual significance
This is closer to what Ray means when he talks about Scripture being “one big parable.”
An event can actually happen while God uses it to illustrate something much larger.
3. A specifically identified parable
Such as the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Sower, the Prodigal Son, the Ten Virgins, etc.
Here Ray argues that the story is not intended to be read as a literal historical account. His treatment of Lazarus and the rich man explicitly calls it a “parable.”
And Ray's interpretation goes further than simply saying, “It's a fictional story.” He looks for the spiritual identities represented by the characters and circumstances.
So what about the Gospels?
This is probably the most important distinction.
Ray certainly did not treat the entire life of Jesus as fictional.
He believed Jesus actually lived, died, was resurrected, and that the events surrounding Him were real. His disagreement was with taking every statement, image, or story in the Gospels as a literal description of physical reality.
For example, the fact that Jesus used a parable about a mustard seed doesn't mean Ray would conclude that Jesus never existed or that His crucifixion was merely symbolic.
Likewise, the fact that Revelation contains enormous amounts of symbolism doesn't mean Ray would throw out the events surrounding Christ's resurrection.
I think “one big parable” is Ray using the word unusually broadly
That's probably the answer to your question.
The ordinary meaning is roughly:
parable = a story, usually fictional, used to communicate a moral or spiritual truth.
Ray's usage is closer to:
parable = something presented in Scripture that points beyond its surface/physical meaning to a spiritual truth.
That's why you can find Ray saying things that initially seem contradictory:
“This is a parable.”
“Don't take this literally.”
“The Bible is one big parable.”
Yet at the same time he treats numerous biblical events as genuine historical events.
The Bible-Truths forum itself reflects this way of thinking. One discussion says Ray had written extensively about parables and that his approach was to find the common spiritual meaning behind them.
Your question about Kings and Chronicles is exactly the right test
I wouldn't interpret Ray's statement “the Bible is one big parable” to mean that he believed Kings and Chronicles were simply fictional stories.
Rather, I would understand him as saying something like:
The Bible has a spiritual meaning running through the whole story, and the physical/historical accounts are used by God to reveal that spiritual truth.
That's a much different proposition.
And there's an interesting consequence of Ray's approach: sometimes he may accept the historical event while rejecting a traditional literal interpretation of what the event means.
That's particularly obvious with Genesis and Revelation.
One thing I would be careful about
There is a difference between saying:
“The Bible contains symbolism and spiritual lessons throughout.”
and saying:
“Everything in the Bible is a parable and therefore nothing should be regarded as historical.”
The first is clearly compatible with Ray's writings.
The second, I don't think accurately represents his position.
In fact, Ray's own discussion of Eve and the serpent illustrates the point: he questions the literal physical interpretation of the serpent while still treating the account as something containing genuine spiritual truth.
So I think your instinct is right: Ray was using “parable” in a considerably broader sense than we normally use the word today.
If you'd like, I can go one step further and
look specifically at Ray's writings on Genesis, Kings/Chronicles, the Gospels, and Revelation and lay out what he appears to regard as literal history versus spiritual symbolism. That would give us a much clearer picture of exactly where he drew the line.
Yes — and I found something that actually makes Ray's position much clearer than the phrase “the Bible is one big parable” does by itself.
In The Lake of Fire, Part 10, Ray explicitly says:
“THE BIBLE IS A GIANT PARABLE”
But then he immediately makes a distinction that answers your original question:
“Not only is the Bible a giant parable, but, all creation is a giant parable. Is it not real? Oh, it is real all right.”
That is probably the single most useful passage for understanding what he meant.
Ray's basic rule seems to be this
He distinguishes between the physical thing and what the physical thing represents spiritually.
His reasoning is roughly:
Physical reality → spiritual meaning
The physical world is real, but it is temporary. The spiritual reality represented by it is what ultimately matters.
So when Ray says “the Bible is a giant parable,” he isn't saying:
“The Bible is a giant work of fiction.”
He's saying that the literal/physical things described in Scripture point to spiritual realities beyond themselves.
He actually says that in the same passage:
“In parables, the literalness of the words is but a symbol that stands for something spiritual and grand.”
That clears up quite a bit.
But there is a fascinating tension in Ray's terminology
Ray also says something considerably stronger in his Lazarus article:
“No parable is literal or historical.”
And in another article he defines parable as a “fictitious narrative.”
So, strictly speaking, Ray is using two related but not identical meanings of “parable.”
Meaning #1 — technical parable
This is what Jesus did with stories such as:
Lazarus and the rich man
The prodigal son
The sower
The mustard seed
The lost sheep
Ray says these are not historical events. They're fictional stories constructed to communicate spiritual truth.
Meaning #2 — the Bible as a “giant parable”
This is broader.
Here Ray is saying that the Bible as a whole uses physical things, historical events, people, places, stories, symbols and figures to reveal spiritual realities.
And this is where his statement about creation becomes very important:
“Is it not real? Oh, it is real all right.”
So “parable” does not equal “fiction” in his broad statement about the Bible.
Now let's apply Ray's method to the books you asked about
Genesis
Ray doesn't simply say:
“Genesis is fiction.”
Instead, he repeatedly looks beneath the physical description for its spiritual meaning.
The serpent, for example, is not simply a snake to Ray. The serpent represents Satan. Likewise, he rejects a number of traditional literal interpretations of Genesis while maintaining that the account communicates real spiritual truth.
So:
Genesis → physical imagery + spiritual reality
Kings and Chronicles
This is where I think your question is particularly good.
Ray does not appear to apply his “fictitious narrative” definition of parable to the entire historical books of Kings and Chronicles.
He can talk about David, Solomon, Israel, Judah, Babylon, etc., as historical people and events.
But then he'll ask:
What does this event teach spiritually?
That's the broader “giant parable” concept.
So you could have:
A real historical event that also functions as a spiritual picture.
That is different from saying:
A fictional parable that never happened.
The Gospels are probably the clearest example
Ray absolutely believed Jesus was real and that His death and resurrection were real.
But he makes a very strong distinction between Jesus' historical actions and the figurative language He used to teach spiritual truths.
For example:
Jesus says:
“I am the bread of life.”
Ray doesn't believe Jesus was literally a loaf of bread.
Jesus says:
“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man...”
Ray doesn't interpret that as literally eating Jesus' physical flesh.
He connects it with Jesus' statement:
“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Ray uses that principle repeatedly: the physical words point toward spiritual meaning.
But that doesn't make Jesus Himself fictional.
That's a critical distinction.
Revelation is different again
Here Ray becomes almost uncompromising.
He says Revelation is a book of symbols, figures and metaphors, and points to Revelation 1:1, where the message was “signified” to John. He interprets the beasts, horns, stars, candlesticks, lake of fire, etc., symbolically rather than literally.
And he gives an excellent example:
The seven stars aren't seven literal stars.
The text itself says the stars represent the angels of the seven churches, and the candlesticks represent the churches.
So Ray reasons:
If the Bible itself tells us something represents something else, don't turn the representation into the literal reality.
That is actually a fairly straightforward interpretive principle.
Here's where I think Ray's system becomes both interesting and difficult
He has a basic interpretive rule:
Don't stop at the physical picture. Find the spiritual reality.
That's consistent throughout his writings.
But the harder question is:
How do you know which things are historical and which things are symbolic?
And Ray doesn't always give us a neat, universally applicable rule.
Sometimes Scripture itself tells us:
“This represents that.”
That's easy.
Sometimes the text clearly uses impossible imagery:
a beam in someone's eye
a camel going through a needle's eye
Jesus as a door
Jesus as bread
seven-headed beasts
Those obviously aren't meant to be understood in a strictly physical sense.
But then there are passages where a historical event and a spiritual meaning can coexist.
That's where interpretation becomes much more subjective.
And this may explain something you've noticed in Ray's teaching
Ray often argues:
“You're taking something spiritual and making it physical.”
His opponents often argue:
“You're taking something literal and making it spiritual.”
Ray's answer is essentially:
The Bible itself is teaching us to look beyond the physical.
In Lake of Fire Part 4, he actually describes the accusation that he is “spiritualizing away” Scripture and turns it around, arguing that his opponents are “materializing away” spiritual truths.
That's a very important piece of his theology.
So I would summarize Ray's position this way
Ray's category What he appears to mean
Actual history Can be genuinely historical
Parable Fictional story used to convey spiritual truth
Symbol Something representing something else
Metaphor Physical language describing a spiritual reality
Revelation Largely symbolic rather than physically literal
Genesis Contains spiritual symbolism; Ray rejects some traditional literal interpretations
Kings/Chronicles Historical material can also have spiritual significance
Gospels Jesus and major events are real; much of His teaching is figurative/spiritual
“The Bible is one big parable” The whole Bible points beyond physical things toward spiritual realities
So no, I don't think Ray meant:
“Kings, Chronicles, the Gospels, etc. are all fictional.”
His own statement that the creation itself is real but functions as a “giant parable” makes that interpretation very difficult to defend.
And I think you've uncovered something genuinely important: Ray's use of the word “parable” is broader when he's talking about the Bible as a whole than when he's talking about a specific parable such as Lazarus and the rich man.
There is one more step I'd like to take with this, because I think it connects directly to your interest in Ray's teaching about Lazarus, hell, aionios, and the eventual salvation of all mankind: we can take one passage from Kings, one from Genesis, one from the Gospels, and one from Revelation and apply Ray's interpretive method to each. That would let us see whether his method actually works consistently, rather than simply accepting his explanation of it.
Ok let's go
Absolutely. Let's do it as an experiment: take four different kinds of passages and apply Ray's own stated method to each one. I think this shows both where his approach is remarkably consistent and where we have to be careful not to turn his method into a rule he himself didn't always explicitly state.
1. Genesis — the serpent in the Garden
Ray's interpretation is unusually clear here.
Genesis says the serpent spoke to Eve. Ray does not explain this as Satan possessing an ordinary snake. He says:
“Satan was this serpent!”
He connects Genesis 3 directly with Revelation 12:9, where Satan is called “that old serpent.”
So Ray's reading is roughly:
Surface picture:
A serpent talks to Eve.
Spiritual reality:
Satan deceives mankind.
And notice something important: Ray isn't merely saying, “The serpent didn't exist.” He's saying that the serpent represents a spiritual reality, and that the spiritual reality is the important part.
This fits his larger principle that physical things can communicate spiritual truths.
But here's the problem
If someone asks:
“Did a literal snake physically talk to Eve?”
Ray's answer would effectively be no.
So already we're seeing that Ray doesn't require every physical detail in Genesis to be historically literal.
That is different from saying Genesis is false.
2. Kings — Rehoboam and the divided kingdom
Now let's try something that is much more obviously historical.
In 1 Kings 12, Rehoboam becomes king after Solomon. The people ask him to lighten the heavy burden Solomon had imposed on them.
Instead, Rehoboam follows the advice of the young men and says, essentially:
You thought my father's burden was heavy? I'll make it heavier.
He tells them that Solomon chastised them with whips but he will chastise them with scorpions.
Ray actually uses this historical episode in his discussion of the Lazarus parable. He cites Rehoboam's actions as part of the historical background of Judah's increasing corruption.
And this is important.
Ray doesn't say:
“Rehoboam is a fictional character representing something.”
He treats Rehoboam as an actual king and the events surrounding him as actual history.
But then he draws a spiritual lesson from that history.
So we get:
Historical event:
Rehoboam really was king.
Historical action:
He really increased the people's burden.
Spiritual significance:
The history illustrates the continuing failure and corruption of Judah.
This is the distinction I think we were looking for.
Ray's “giant parable” doesn't require:
history = fiction.
Instead:
history → can itself teach a spiritual truth.
That's quite different.
3. The Gospels — Lazarus and the rich man
Now we come to the passage where Ray draws the sharpest line.
Ray says Lazarus and the rich man is a genuine parable and not a historical event.
He points out something very interesting.
The story says the rich man goes to Hades and sees Abraham.
But Ray asks:
Was Abraham actually alive in heaven at that point?
He answers no.
He points to Genesis 25, Acts 2 and Hebrews 11, among other passages, to argue that Abraham was dead and had not ascended to heaven.
Therefore Ray argues that Jesus wasn't giving His disciples a literal description of the afterlife.
He was using Abraham, the rich man, Lazarus, the gulf, Moses, the prophets, etc., as symbolic elements in a parable.
And Ray goes even further.
He interprets the rich man as representing Judah/Jewry, rather than one individual wealthy man.
He points to the man's purple clothing, for example, and connects purple with royalty and therefore with Judah's royal position.
So:
Literal story:
A rich man and a beggar die and experience radically different conditions.
Ray's interpretation:
The story represents a much larger spiritual/historical reality involving Judah, the Gentiles, God's judgment, and the eventual reversal of those conditions.
And this is where Ray makes his famous statement:
“Literally it is nothing. But what it represents in figurative and symbolic language is awesome.”
That sentence is almost a perfect summary of his approach.
4. Revelation — the sea
Now let's take something from Revelation rather than one of Jesus' parables.
Revelation 17:15 says the waters where the woman sits represent:
peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues.
Ray therefore says:
sea ≠ literal ocean
Instead:
sea = peoples/nations/multitudes
He uses this same principle throughout Revelation. He interprets beasts, heads, horns, mountains, fire, the sea, etc., as symbols.
And here Ray's reasoning is actually fairly straightforward:
The Bible itself tells us what the symbol means.
That's much stronger than simply saying, “I don't think this sounds literal.”
For example:
Revelation says the waters are peoples.
So Ray isn't inventing the symbolic method out of thin air.
Now let's put all four beside each other
Passage Ray's approach
Genesis 3 Spiritual reality expressed through the serpent/Garden imagery
1 Kings 12 Actual historical king and historical events, with spiritual significance
Luke 16 — Lazarus A fictional parable representing a much larger spiritual reality
Revelation Symbolic visions representing spiritual realities
And this is why “the Bible is one big parable” can be confusing.
Because Ray is using parable in two different ways.
Narrow meaning
A parable is a fictional narrative used to communicate spiritual truth.
That's how he treats Lazarus and the rich man.
Broad meaning
The Bible as a whole is a physical book communicating spiritual truth through history, symbols, metaphors, prophecy, parables, figures of speech, and real events.
That's what he means when he calls the Bible a “giant parable.”
And Ray himself makes the distinction surprisingly well in Lake of Fire Part 10, where he says the creation itself is a “giant parable” and then immediately asks whether it is real:
“Is it not real? Oh, it is real all right.”
That is a pretty strong indication that “parable” in his broad usage does not mean “fiction.”
But now we get to the really interesting question
I think there is a weak spot in Ray's method.
His principle is essentially:
Don't assume the physical picture is the whole truth. Look for the spiritual meaning.
I have no problem describing that as Ray's method.
But the difficult question is:
Who decides when the physical picture is historical and when it is symbolic?
That's where things get much less tidy.
For example:
Rehoboam:
The text reads naturally as history → Ray treats it as history.
Lazarus:
The story contains an impossible picture of the afterlife → Ray treats it as a parable.
Revelation:
The text explicitly identifies symbols → Ray treats it symbolically.
Genesis:
Some things are treated literally/historically, while other things are treated symbolically.
That means Ray's actual method isn't:
“Everything is symbolic.”
It's more like:
“Everything has spiritual significance, but not everything is symbolic in the same way.”
And that is a much more defensible description of his theology.
One more thing I noticed that is particularly important
Ray himself gives us a rule that helps explain why he can still accept some literal details inside a parable.
In his Lazarus article he says:
“Literal where and when possible.”
That's a very revealing statement.
He doesn't mean:
“Nothing in a parable can be literal.”
He means that you take something literally when the context allows it, but when the literal interpretation creates contradictions with Scripture, science, or the rest of the passage, you look for the symbolic meaning.
That's why, in the Lazarus story, Ray can say Abraham is literally Abraham and Moses and the prophets are literally Moses and the prophets, while still saying the overall story isn't a literal account of two dead men talking across a gulf.
And here's where I think this gets really interesting for you
Your original question was essentially:
“If the Bible is one big parable, does that mean none of it is literally true?”
After looking at Ray's own words, I would now answer:
No. That is not what Ray meant.
His position is closer to:
The Bible contains real history, but the history is not necessarily the ultimate message. The physical events, people and circumstances can serve as pictures of spiritual realities. In addition, Scripture contains deliberately fictional parables and deliberately symbolic visions.
And that distinction becomes very important when we get to Ray's teaching about the resurrection, judgment, hell, aionios, and the eventual salvation of all mankind.
Because there we can ask a much harder question:
Does Ray apply his “literal where and when possible” rule consistently when he interprets the passages about hell and judgment—or does he sometimes make something symbolic primarily because a literal interpretation conflicts with his larger theological conclusion?
That's a question worth examining without either defending Ray or attacking him. We can take the actual verses he uses—Matthew 25:46, Revelation 20, 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 5, 1 Timothy 4:10, etc.—and see exactly how his method works on them.
Awesome,Thanks
You're very welcome! I'm glad we were able to untangle what Ray meant by “the Bible is one big parable.” It really is easy to misunderstand that statement if you take parable in its usual modern sense.
And I think the distinction we arrived at—real history can carry spiritual meaning, while some passages are deliberately symbolic or fictional parables—makes Ray's writings much easier to follow.
You're asking exactly the kind of questions that are worth asking when reading Ray: not simply “Do I agree with him?” but “What does he actually mean, and does he apply his method consistently?
Author
Topic: One big parable? (Read 119 times)